Case-Lets

Case 1.
Radhey offered to sell Shyam a second hand farm equipment. Radhey told that the machine was
in another town and that it was just one year old and largely unused like a new machine. The
equipment did not belong to Radhey at that time. He bought it from Murlidhar and put it on
railway to send it to Shyam. A week later Shyam wrote a letter to Radhey as follows-
….I had a look at the machine that you sent, but it is not what I had expected, it is a very old
machine and has been repaired but you told me it was unused and as good as new. I think you
have never seen it yourself. It is of no use to me…..
Shyam returned the machine to Radhey and sued him for his money and damages. Is his claim
maintainable?

Case 2.
Asaram Babu got the contract of felling trees and collecting timber through an agreement to
sell. Asaram commenced the work of felling trees. All the trees were felled, sawn and timber
was collected at a central point for transportations. Asaram claimed that all precautions had
been taken to avoid inflammatory material around the storage area, and watchmen were also
appointed to keep vigil. Fire broke out and destroyed the timber. Asaram contended that no
money was due to the state as the title to timber was still with the state and hence the loss was
for the seller. The forest department, however, demanded the amount due under the sale.
Asaram filed a writ petition against the forest department. Decide the legal position of Asaram.

Case 3.
Tanu offered to sell a stereo system to Navin for Rs. 9000 on 2nd September saying that the
offer would stay open for a week. Navin told his brother that he would like to accept Tanu's
offer and, unknown to Navin, his brother told Tanu of this on 3rd September. On 4th
September Tanu, with Navin’s brother present, sold the stereo to Isha. The brother informed
Navin of this fact on the same day. On 5th September Navin delivered a letter of acceptance to
Tanu. Determine if there is a valid contract.
Case 4.
Karisma took her wedding dress to the dry cleaners to be cleaned. It was a silk dress, made with
intricate beading and threadwork. She was given a receipt which contained conditions, which she
was told restricted the cleaner's liability, particularly with regard to the risk of damage to the
beads and threadwork on her dress. The conditions actually stated that the cleaners had
absolutely no liability for damage to the dress. Karisma signed the agreement assuming that all
dry cleaners would want to protect themselves against damaging beads and threadwork.

The dress was badly stained in the cleaning process. What is Karisma's legal position to claim
damages?

Case 5.

Seema is negotiating with a manufacturer to buy stock for her new shop 'Kind Bath'. She will be
selling a range of toiletries and bathroom items. She has explicitly told her shampoo
manufacturer during the course of discussions that she does not want to buy goods tested on
animals or that have had ingredients tested on animals. The manufacturer replied that the
products were not tested on animals.

Seema sold some of the goods in her shop, advertising them as kind to animal products. An
animal rights group pointed out that one of the ingredients in the shampoo range had been tested
on animals. Seema took the rest of the product off her shelves and refused to pay the supplier.

What is Seema's legal position with regard to her contract with the supplier?

Case 6.

Sameera offered to sell her car to Pankaj for Rs. 72,000. She said he could think about it until
Monday. Pankaj rang her on Saturday and left a message on her answering machine asking if she
would agree to his paying in monthly instalments for six months. She rang back in the evening to
say she would want the full cash sum. On Sunday, Pankaj accepted the original offer.
Meanwhile, Sameera had sold the car to Eesha on Saturday night.

What is the legal position? Did Pankaj have a contract by accepting the offer?
Case 7.

Gautam sells paintings by Govinda in his art shop. He has undertaken not to advertise the
paintings at a lower price than Govinda has specified, only to sell the paintings to private
collectors, and not to display any of Govinda's paintings without his permission. They have
agreed that if Gautam breaks any of these conditions, he will have to pay Govinda Rs.10,000.

Gautam hangs a picture that Govinda gifted to Gautam's wife for Deepawali the previous year
above the counter in his shop. Govinda claims that Gautam does not have permission to display
the picture and is demanding Rs.10,000 for breach of contract. Is he right in his demand? Justify
the claim.

Case 8.

A private limited company had a total of 500 shares. The shares were held by two brothers
Murari and Banwari. Each of the branches held equal shares of the company. Murari died on Feb
5, 1963 and Banwari joined his brother on Jan 10, 1970. There was an oral agreement between
the brothers that each of the branches of family would always continue to hold the same number
of shares, i.e. 250. If any member in either of the branches wished to sell his shares he would
give the first right of refusal to the members of that branch and if this offer was not accepted,
would offer the shares to others.

The articles of association, however, were silent on this agreement. Contrary to agreement
Murari’s son sold his shares to the son of Banwari. The other heirs of Murari brought a suit
against him to declare the sale of shares void and an order to restrain the registration of shares.
The lower court and high court held the sale of shares to be invalid.

Do you agree with the judgment? Explain.